Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about — Frank Apisa

Agreed, much better philosophically, but seen as much worse by all those whose personal identity depends on them having an answer which is superior to somebody else's answer. So let's address that agenda, given that it tends to dominate philosophy forums.

The theist gets to pretend they are superior to atheists, and atheists get to pretend they are superior to theists. In both cases, the pretender can only position themselves above a limited number of people.

The agnostic however can pretend they are superior to BOTH theists AND atheists. From a purely ego calculation point of view, which is what's underway most of the time on philosophy forums, the agnostic position is clearly more logical, as it delivers the fantasy superiority experience much more efficiently.

The methodology was logic. — Philosophim

Agreed.

There are certain things we have to assume as norms to have conversations. — Philosophim

Why? I'm not assuming logic to be qualified for god questions, and I'm still having a conversation.

Imagine if every time I wanted a logical conversation with someone, I had to prove logic! — Philosophim

But we're not talking about "every time we have a conversation" but instead a specific conversation on the very largest question regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can not define in even the most basic manner. The rest of your post just multiplies that confusion.

Apologies, really not meaning to offend, but what's happening here is that you keep defending the universal relevance of human reason, while declining to do human reason yourself. We don't just blindly assume things to be true in philosophy, just because we want them to be true.

Again, in fairness to you, the mistake you're making has been repeated by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides of the question, most likely including all your philosophy professors. And so you are understandably assuming that you are on solid ground in believing logic to be relevant to every question no matter how large.

A side benefit of this conversation could be a re-examination of your relationship with authority. Should you look closely enough, you'll find there is a whole lot of "the emperor has no clothes" going on. Those who have authority positions are typically those with a gift for playing the authority game, a skill which really has little to do with philosophy.

If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. — substantivalism

Now you're getting it. The "does god exist" question doesn't model reality very well. The vast majority of the time that question seeks a simple yes/no answer. The example of space illustrates that reality is rather more complicated than such a simplistic yes/no, exists or not paradigm. And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers.

Or, we of course have the option to continue to endlessly repeat the same old arguments for another 500 years in order to arrive at a destination we already inhabit.

I will contend that the argument does apply to our reality in its earlier points. I conclude that it is impossible for our universe to not have had a first cause. — Philosophim

Best I can tell, you reach that conclusion using a methodology you decline to challenge.

Seems kind of like a "because it's in the Bible" argument. First the Bible is assumed without questioning to be qualified, and then arguments are built upon that assumption.

Any scope outside of it is irrelevant to whether the argument is logical and sound within its premises and conclusions. — Philosophim

Perhaps for a next project you could explain why we should care if an argument uses sound logic if the argument has no relationship with reality. Do you conceive of the puzzle you've presented as a kind of card game? You know, a collection of arbitrary rules which are fun to inhabit for awhile? If yes, I have no complaints, but it might be helpful to state that clearly from the start.

There are good reasons why we spontaneously feel the way we do about suicide. But, perhaps a deeper understanding of the complexity of forces that lie inside of what we naively label “depression” might help us understand that, in most cases, suicide may not be judged as a moral or psychological failure, but as a melancholy that has overpowered a suffering soul. — Natherton

Wow, Natherton, what a great post. Well done, more please.

I was listening to a NPR show about suicide awhile back where a panel of experts was passionately making the case for suicide prevention etc. They obviously had the best of intentions, but the irony of their cause seemed not to dawn on them. The message they were really sharing, without intending to, was something like this.

"Sure, your life totally sucks now, but we really really really need to help you avoid suicide because... ...the alternative to your sucky life is even worse."

What an uplifting message for a depressed person to receive, eh? Especially given that the depressed person is inevitably going to die sooner or later anyway.

And of course, the widely shared assumption that death is bad, to be avoided at all costs, is based on pretty much nothing more than fear and ignorance. So, based on our own fear and ignorance we presume to lecture and judge suicidal folks, give them advice, "rescue" them etc. Good intentions, sloppy philosophy.

I dunno. In my own mind I tend to draw an age based line. If someone is over 50 and has been here long enough to have considerable experience, and they decide to leave, I don't see how anyone is in a position to advise them. But younger folks are often overwhelmed by temporary strong emotions driven by hormones and inexperience etc, and I would be more inclined to intervene there.

One of the factors driving suicide would seem to be that folks are having a bad time in life, and they assume that the badness is all they will ever have. If death were perceived as being something other than the worst possible outcome, the situation would be less desperate. Maybe we need to upgrade out relationship with death? Not just the troubled person, but all of us?

No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing — substantivalism

How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh?

My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc.

What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers.

If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility.

How does she appeal to anyone besides establishment Democrats? — Xtrix

Biden has repeatedly said he will be a transition president, so he may be taking the long view. Black and brown voters will soon form the majority in America. When the Dems first pick Obama, and now Harris, they are essentially locking in a majority for some time to come. And then the Repubs help out by electing and then supporting a loud mouth ass who routinely disrespects both Blacks and Hispanics.

Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. — substantivalism

Yes, I hear you. Here's an accessible documentary which goes in to considerable detail on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPv8zApee0&t=58s

I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect.

What I suspect is happening is that we're trying to map a simplistic "exists or not" paradigm which is perfectly reasonable at human scale on to the very largest of scales, and doing so rather blindly.

Another obstacle is that commentators on the god question are typically so laser focused on promoting their preferred answer that they typically have little time or energy left over for inspecting the question they are attempting to address.

I just don't want to distract from what I'm posting here, which you seem to understand. No offense taken, we'll talk on another topic another time. =) — Philosophim

Ok, sounds good!

I didnt complain about it being personal, or that you were grouchy. — DingoJones

Correct. And I'm leaving before I get grouchy. You can be grouchy on your own if you want, that's up to you. :-)

I'm not going to consider your posts as having any value to the topic. — Philosophim

Ok, no problem. You've defined the topic narrowly enough so that you can do the logic dance you know how to do. No problem. I'm happy to bow out, and I'm sure others will play the game you wish to play.

FYI, I'm not really challenging you personally so much as I am the philosophy profession at large. If they knew what they were doing, you'd already know everything I'm saying and have plenty to contribute to it.

In what way is that constructive?! — DingoJones

Please don't take it personally, it's not about you at all. The thing is, I'm pushing 70, an old man, doing this very thing for over 20 years, almost daily. I've read everything you're saying, almost literally word for word, about 72 billion times. When I become bored, I get grouchy, and then it's down hill from there. Trying to learn to let it go before that happens.

There is a limitless supply of people you can yell at on the Internuts. :-) I'm not denying you anything you can't easily find immediately in a million other places. Smile and be happy!

It only takes one sunk aircraft carrier in the South China Sea and there's no trace of globalization, no trace of friendly relations and talks in a G20 summit, no eating cake at Mar-a-Lago. — ssu

Yes, agreed, we are riding the edge every day.

One thing I've come to find interesting is our relationship with being in this position. Our relationship with civilization death is so much like our relationship with personal death. We are so skillful at sweeping inconvenient information under the rug. We know all this, and yet we don't.

Well, the generation of Greta Thunberg is already bitching at us so, we don't think we are anything special either — ssu

Ha ha, it's payback time, eh? :-) Give'em hell Greta! :-)

We b do the best with what we have. — DingoJones

My point is, you're not doing that. You're not following your own chosen methodology.

If a religious person makes a claim from the Bible, you ask them to prove the Bible is qualified, right? Anybody making any claim bears the burden of proving their chosen authority is qualified to speak credibly to the subject at hand. Apparently, you apply this process only to other people's chosen authorities, but not to your own. Thus, you are not doing reason, but ideology.

Well, if you are telling me im not allowed or shouldnt use my current tools then Im asking you which ones you would like me to use — DingoJones

You aren't using reason, that's the problem. You're allowed to use reason, you aren't willing, or not able.

Apologies, but this is just too tiresome. Most constructive thing I can do is grant you victory, wish you well, and bow out.

I fail to see how saying a person has free will and is in charge of their mind isnt eminent common sense? Nor is it in any way exaggerated. — Asif

It's exaggerated to turn free will, or determinism, in to a principle that applies to everything. Some things we have free will for, somethings are determined, and there are a billion combinations of the above. Common sense.

It's not touchy. It's boring. The wild exaggerations in any and every direction so as to strike a bold pose. Blatant disregard of common sense. College sophomore stuff. But, if a poster actually is a college sophomore, then ok, everything has it's time and place.

And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. — 3017amen

I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love.

The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc — EricH

The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe.

You are the general of your own mind — Pantagruel

Just more simplistic exaggeration to make a point which sounds dramatic, confusing dramatic with philosophical. Ok, I'll leave you and the determinists in peace now. Perhaps we'll have more luck on another subject.

My assignment is to hand in a — StoicQueen

No, sorry, your assignment has been changed. :-) If you are female, your assignment now is to hang around this place and provide some balance to the dominance of male energy so typical of philosophy forums. You could start in your own thread if you wish, that would be welcome.

if you really feel that you have not the power of the freedom of choice, you are pathologically impaired in some sense — Pantagruel

You're making the same error as the determinists. Are you proposing that I have freedom of choice about EVERYTHING? They exaggerate in one direction, you exaggerate in the opposite direction.

I’m merely pointing out that we have no reason to think logic would fail at any particular thing. — DingoJones

Yes, we do have good reason to suspect that the highly imperfect reasoning ability of a semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat (an ever present threat it finds too boring to discuss) just might not be capable of generating credible answers to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, an arena which said species can not define in even the most basic manner.

Apologies, but you are merely chanting atheist ideology dogmas.

You dont have a better tool to offer, so with science as with logic you have no substance to your argument — DingoJones

I don't need to provide an alternative, that's not my burden. As an salesman for logic and science it is YOUR burden to prove that such methodologies are qualified for the tasks which you are applying them to. You're advocating the universal qualifications of reason, without actually doing reason yourself. Classic atheist error.

So if we are pessimistic, I'd suggest that is by choice — Pantagruel

My sense is that the answer lies somewhere in the muddled inconvenient middle. If true, this is not likely to be a popular theory with philosophers as it would then be difficult to strike some bold pose, a favorite pastime of we world leading philosophers peeps. :-)

I have a friend who was literally born hysterical. Not a choice. But she's also a MAJOR spoiled brat, which she mostly shares only around people she knows will put up with it. A choice. Her biological situation and her psychological situation are meshed together in a complex manner which seems impossible to untangle. So you never really know whether you should be compassionate with her, or hit her upside of the head with a phone book. :-)

I think the determinists have a reasonable point to a degree, but some of some just take it to ridiculous extremes.

That is pretty much the opposite of my position — EricH

Um, in your reply you demonstrated that my understanding of your position was correct. You clearly believe that a god does not exist, thus you believe the question "does God exist" to be a valid question.

You argument is with a particular answer to the question, not with the question itself.

If you found the question itself to be invalid, then you would have no preferred answer to that question. As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?

Yes, I advocate and practise a Stoic-Buddhist philosophy of life. Very much begins with this insight. — Pantagruel

Ok then, so we could rehabilitate this thread with that if you wish. Or start another thread on the subject perhaps? Or let it go. Agreeable to any of the above.

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric. — Frank Apisa

I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. If I understand correctly (i may not) he is agreeable to the validity of the question, so long as it is answered as he prefers.

It seems to me there is an important difference between being atheist to theist claims, and being "atheist" to the God debate itself.

Obviously we should always act with compassion — Pantagruel

My complaint, which I don't want to get too carried away with, is that selling pessimism in a thread about suicide doesn't really qualify as compassion. That said, I will agree that it's very common on philosophy forums for a poster to start some personally dramatic thread like this, and then vanish. So I guess if they have abandoned the turf then it no longer belongs to them.

If you ask a question about suicide on a philosophy forum then you should expect philosophical information. — Pantagruel

Fair enough. But hopefully, if life and death is on the line, one would hopefully receive better philosophical information than has been made available here.

If a poster wished to claim that death is better than life, and then act on that conclusion themselves thus making their claim credible, then ok, that's a claim that really can't be challenged and they have every right to it.

Otherwise is seems reasonable to proceed upon the assumption that life is better than death, if for no other reason than that is a screaming demand built in to our bodies at a very fundamental level. Should we be willing to accept such an assumption as a valid way to proceed, then the rational act is to fill the thread with constructive ideas of how suffering can be alleviated, to the degree that is possible.

Although I agree I have failed at this, as I so often do, the constructive insight I've been attempting to share is this.

Suffering is made of thought.

Five words, which open a door to very accessible (partial and imperfect) solutions to any serious person. The problem we face here, is that there appear to be no serious folks in this thread, but only honking blowhards such as myself. :-) It's a "get what you pay for" deal here folks! :-)

Alright, the challenge is on! Where is the flaw I finally found? — Philosophim

You appear to be assuming, like almost all commentators on the subject, that a God can only exist or not, one or the other. Such an assumption is seriously challenged by an observation of reality, which reveals that the vast majority of reality, space, does not fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" categories.

Imho, this is a very common error, which to be fair to you, is shared by many of the greatest thinkers on these subjects, theist and atheist. You simply assume without questioning that the question at hand (does God exist?) is a valid and useful question, and then build an elaborate chain of sophisticated reasoning on top of that very shaky foundation. All of your effort goes in to your preferred answers, none of it goes in to the question.

What I'm attempting to illustrate in these comments is an efficient philosophical method which I call "going up a level", though surely someone can come up with a better name.

It's easiest to get the "going up a level" methodology when it is applied to some position we don't agree with. To illustrate, imagine the reader is an atheist, and some theist starts a thread claiming something like, "So and so is true, because it says so in the Bible." The efficiently lazy :-) atheist doesn't need to be dragged through a 7 year long analysis of 147 Bible verses, they can just ask the theist to prove that the Bible is qualified to speak to whatever the claim is. The atheist has "gone up a level" from the detailed arguments to the authority the arguments are derived from.

Atheist readers may enthusiastically approve of "going up a level", until that methodology is applied to atheism, then not so much. :-)

So whats this gripe you got with philosophers — DingoJones

I'm just joining them in leaving nothing above inspection and challenge.

Logic has a proven reliability and usefulness — DingoJones

This is the classic error which gets blindly repeated over and over and over again, even by some of the most prominent thinkers. This error is the foundation of atheism for example.

Yes, logic has proven useful for too many things to list at human scale. That is certainly true. But that does NOT automatically equal logic being useful for EVERYTHING, no matter how large the question.

Here's an example. Holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, an astounding accomplishment which science can't begin to touch. Holy books have proven themselves beyond any doubt to have this ability in very many cases. But that does not automatically equal holy books being qualified for any claim they might make. We can't blindly leap from one proven ability to any claim whatsoever, no matter how large, and label that logic.

This is like questioning science (in general — DingoJones

I'd be happy to question science in general, but let's save that for another thread. Start one if you wish, and I'll try to join you there.

What about to replace logic? — DingoJones

I'm attempting to replace your logic with real logic. Real logic, not ideological assertions made from an emotional attachment to some ideology which perhaps makes you feel superior to somebody else.

Determinism is just an incoherent dogma — Asif

There's truth in it, up to a point. But college sophomore types sometimes try to exaggerate it in to a kind of universally binding principle applicable to every situation, mistaking drama for philosophy. There's no crime in that, and we've all been there I bet.

But if we're going to join threads started by people in trouble, maybe we should strive to make constructive suggestions, observations and comments etc? If a poster wishes to tell us that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do etc, perhaps they should start their own threads for that?

How was it established before you were born? — Asif

Genetics.

First, I never claimed logic is good for everything — Philosophim

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

But aren't you assuming, without questioning or any evidence, that logic is qualified to address topics the scale of gods? More to the point, isn't such an unexamined assumption extremely common, not just on philosophy forums, but among philosophy professionals as well?

Can you explain to me why logic is not good for the argument posted?

I obviously can't prove that logic isn't qualified to address topics the scale of gods, not being one myself. I'm not claiming logic is unqualified for such investigations, only that it has not been proven so, and to me at least, it seems unlikely that it is.

I'm not challenging your arguments, I'm challenging the foundation your arguments are built upon.

If others wish to ignore the foundation, and play the game you as wish to play it, I have no objection, go for it.

What to you would be an example of something determined? — Asif

I'm incurably philosophical, as is my family tree, a fact established before I was born and beyond my control to change.

Perhaps this will help. There are clearly many things where human logic has proven it's qualifications, too many to begin to list. However, it doesn't automatically follow that human reason is relevant to and qualified for EVERY investigation, no matter how large, or how far from human scale etc.

Human beings are immeasurably small. The god idea addresses the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

You're making a VERY COMMON unwarranted leap from...

Logic is good for many things.

TO:

Logic is good for everything.

Determinism is an illusion — Asif

Some things are clearly determined and beyond our choice. But not EVERYTHING.

I think you are letting your bias against religion — Philosophim

FYI, I have no bias against religion in general. Really, I don't. You'll see this as we proceed.

Or is it you're worried you won't be able to figure out the flaw?

No, I'm not, because I've already done that. :-)

You don't go to other topics and tell them, "You haven't proven logic first, so its pointless!"

Actually, I do that all the time. :-) And professional philosophers commenting on religion dodge the challenge all the time, just as you are doing. Very normal.

Within human logic, where is the flaw in the original post?

The post assumes the rules of human reason are binding upon the subject of gods, without questioning such a huge assumption in any way at all, or offering evidence of any kind to support that assumption. This my friend, is human logic at work.

You appear to want me to accept that premise as a matter of faith, just as you are doing, and then confine myself within that illusion. I don't object to the request, I just decline to be a person of faith.

Ok then, so if you truly have no control over anything, then there is exactly no point to any philosophy.

Sorry to be harsh with you, I really don't mean to, and have no personal problem with you at all. It's just that this determinism business is highly sophomoric, and I'm an old man, apparently running low on patience. My bad.

When I was your age I went on a binge of reading Solzhenitsyn, a similar experience as reading Schopenhauer I suppose, all dark and dreary and desperate etc. It's a phase a lot of young guys go through. It'll pass.

There's a good cure for this ailment though. Boobies. I'll say no more. :-)